The book did not entertain or inform. I'm sorry I spent my money on it

Let's assume you can ride a bike, but your knowledge stops there. If you are in this situation and are comtempleting riding a bike in order to increase your fitness level, then this is the book for you. This book is a comprehensive look at basic and intermediate level bike riding. Equipment, safety, nutrition and a comprehensive set of training schedules are included in this book. The message in the text is reinforced by the use of humerous illustrations. The only complaint I had about the book it that the beginning rides are 10 miles long, which felt like they were going to kill me! But!, as the author promised, those days rapidly fell behind me and I have quickly increased my fitness level, lost some weight and had fun, all because of this book. Buy it if you are thinking about riding a bike for you health!!

Mill has to be among the most egotistical and arrogant of philosophers. That is saying quite a bit.

"On Liberty" shows this very well. In this little tract, he is hailed as focusing on the individual and extolling freedom, etc. In fact, however, it is a rather good reflection of his dim view of the majority of humanity as "mediocre" (which may or may not be accurate), and his very self-serving view of eccentricity. Why is this so? Quite simply, this can be seen by his vaunted "harm principle." It seems great on the surface, and hard to argue that it would limit "good" eccentricity. But this is not the case. If one wishes to stretch what is considered "harm," and (in following from the "Considerations on Representative Government") what is considered "self-protection," one would run against Mill's ideology, and one can guess that this protector of liberty would then be more than willing to come down on this "dangerous" eccentric. In the end, it turns out that Mill is very supportive of eccentricity....as long as it is the eccentricity of John Stuart Mill. Moreover, his system seems like it would only work if it became what he was arguing against: he wants to liberate (certain) people from the bonds of social prejudice. Yet, in order to free people from the intoleration of social opinion, tolerance must become the social opinion, which would be just as biased and intolerant as the previous variety. Perhaps this is where we have the origin of our modern "tolerance of all, except the 'intolerant.'"

For a man hailed so much for his writings, a deeper reading reveals a rather elitist and self-centered ideology. Quite a disappointment.

You can read Rand, Emerson and Hayek. You can even marvel at the orations of Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson. There is still not a single book that defends individual liberty and individual spirit as well as J.S. Mill's "On Liberty."

First, it must be said; If we are judging by original philosophical arguments, Mill is not much. His "Utilitarianism" (on which much of "On Liberty" was built) has been attacked from many angles. His "Representative Government" is better replaced by Locke's "Second Treatise" or (if you've time to kill), Montesquieu's "Spirit of Laws." I still give this five stars though because "On Liberty" is just that good. I've already read it 5 times in '02!

What makes it so gosh-durn tasty is that it is the first book- to my knowledge- to defend individual liberty without stooping to the 'natural rights' or 'social contract' balderdash. Liberty, Mill argues, is good for a few reasons. First, it maximizes debate which helps avoid the stifler of all societies, dogmatism. It is also the best way not to screw things up, meaning, that people know their interests better than others. As the reviewer below points out, Mill does disdain majority rule though it's not out of contempt for the masses (Mill is clear this is not what he means.) Rather, his view is that majority rule leads to tyranny just as fast as despotic rule. What it boils down to is that Mill defends democracy, liberty, skepticism and tradition (yes..simultaneously) as long as each AVOIDS dogmatic thinking and operates while keeping the individual sacrosanct. Ya know..come to think of it...Bush, Gore, Dashcale, Gephardt, Hatch, Lott and the entire beltway clan might benefit from this read. I wonder if they can understand such big thoughts?! Just kidding!! (No, I'm not!) ;-/

In one of the most bizarre books I have ever read, John Birch Society honcho John F. McManus puts forth the wackiest conspiracy theory imaginable--that the renowned conservative polemicist William F. Buckley has for more than fifty years served as an agent for a cabal that aims to set up a Communist world state.

This cabal, which he dubs "the Establishment," is run by a group of influential conspirators whom he calls "insiders." A number of organizations including the the United States Central Intelligence Agency, the Council on Foreign Relations--an influential think tank--and even college fraternities such as Yale University's Skull and Bones Society are also part of the Establishment. McManus contends that the conspirators recruited Buckley and then assigned him the mission of taking over the conservative movement so as to lead it astray, and that for more than five decades, Buckley has faithfully served the Establishment by enthusiastically carrying out this assignment.

While his book is well-written and readable, the evidence McManus presents to back up these sensational charges is rather wanting. Most of it comes from secondary sources, many of which are publications of the John Birch Society itself. Sometimes he uses no evidence at all, as when he asserts, without an iota of proof, that the Central Intelligence Agency must have financed National Review, the opinion journal which Buckley helped to start.

McManus' use of facts is also highly selective. For example, in trying to portray the Skull and Bones Society as an arm of the conspiracy, he cites the names of a number of "Bonesmen" who, he asserts, are doing the conspiracy's work. However, he fails to mention that Senator Robert A. Taft (R-Ohio), a leading conservative whom he regards as a hero, as well as President William Howard Taft--not exactly a lion of the Left--were also members.

McManus also flays Buckley's longtime associate, James Burnham, for having once been a Trotskyist--although he had long since repudiated Trotskyism and had become a noted anti-communist by the time he teamed up with Buckley--and condemns Burnham's book, The Web of Subversion, a bestseller in 1954, for not having hewed to the Birch party line. However, McManus fails to note that for several years, the John Birch Society itself published and distributed this very same book! Perhaps being a Bircher, like being a liberal, means never having to say you're sorry.

And so it goes. Although McManus is a skilled communicator who can write slick prose, he presents a highly distorted portrait of William F. Buckley that is simply not true to life. While his book is of some usefulness in that it presents some of the Old Right's criticisms of Buckley's style of conservatism, McManus' flawed analysis and his selective use of facts to fit his bizarre conspiracy theory diminish its value. McManus may have come out swinging, but he failed to land a glove on William F. Buckley.

Though I too was once under the sway of William F. Buckley, the litany of left-wing positions Buckley took over the years has killed off any admiration I could ever have for him. And it has ruined any chance of his obtaining a sizeable following from anyone younger than the blue-haired crowd. His wit is gone, his columns are now virtually unreadable, and he increasingly bears both a physical as well as philosophical resemblance to Teddy Kennedy.

Buckley began to champion an increasing number of far left causes in his syndicated columns in the 1980s and 1990s: foreign aid to Russia, federal gun control measures, legalized prostitution, legalized drugs, support for "gay rights" legislation, etc. An old saying relates that if you have a reputation for arriving at work early, you can show up as late as you want. Buckley acquired a reputation for being conservative and has subsequently been as liberal as he wants. Which is to say, shockingly liberal. Buckley is in fact to the left of much of the Democratic Party.

McManus has dug up many more leftist positions from Buckley than even I had seen, including even some early positions Buckley took in favor of legalized abortion. No longtime conservative reading McManus' book would fail to be amazed at the sheer volume of left-wing positions Buckley has been taken. And more than a few would doubt the veracity of the book, if not for the fact that it is painstakingly documented with footnotes.

I believe the most damning Buckley position McManus cites is an article he wrote for Commonweal magazine in 1952, claiming that "we have got to accept big government for the duration" of the cold war.

Buckley subsequently created his National Review magazine in 1955 with a coterie of ex-Trotskyite leftists and friends from Buckley's work in the CIA.

Perhaps the most important part of this book is that McManus makes a credible case that National Review was never a publication of the right, although National Review nevertheless published a number of excellent essays in the 1950s and 1960s. National Review with William F. Buckley at the helm did more to harm and split up the right than any other publication.

The only criticism of this book that could be made is that the subject of this biography, William F. Buckley, Jr., is no longer worth the attention given by this book. Buckley's luster with the conservative movement began to evaporate during the 1970s, which was about the time he started to write for Playboy and Penthouse magazines.

It's ironic that the author of this book was once a big fan of William F. Buckley. Buckley's National Review even published a letter to the editor from John F. McManus, in which the author attacked the John Birch Society he is now president of. How times have changed, both with McManus and with the ever leftward moving William F. Buckley.

By way of disclosure, I should add that I am a former employee of the John Birch Society and that this book begins with a long quotation of one of my columns in The New American magazine (a JBS-affiliated publication for which I still occasionally write).

Those who order this book may be surprised at its relatively small size (the book is actually 198 pages long, instead of the 320 cited above). "21st Century Gay" manages to walk straight down the middle of the gulf between gay seperatists and gay mainstreamers by pointing out how both sides in the end truly need each other (even though they often find themselves thwarting each other). Pivotal events, such as the Shepard tragedy and Rock Hudson's AIDS revelation, are described in overtly practical terms that lends insight into the social climate that made these episodes turning points in gay america--in ways I never fully considered.

If you're looking for a book that endorses either mainstream or seperatist approaches in the continuing struggle for gay rights, you won't find it here. However, I believe the uncommonly balanced coverage in "21st Century Gay" makes it one of the most valuable primers of gay rights issues you'll ever find.

This novel follows Steve Hill, an educated black man, through his struggles to find a place in white America without compromising too much of himself. Although not as well developed as some of Williams' later works, there are interesting themes of interracial relationships and Steve's inner conflicts. I recommend the book as a way to develop a better understanding of Williams as a writer. If you want his best stuff, stick to The Man Who Cried I Am.

But the print is so hard to read!

John C. Ropes has written a classic history of the Union Army of under the brief leadership of John Pope which ended with Pope's defeat at the hands of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson at Second Manassas in August 1862. This slim book was part of a "Campaigns of the Civil War" series originally published in the 1880s, and the current edition is a verbatim of the original.

While much has been said about Pope's bombastic "Headquarters in the Saddle" speech that offended many of the rank and file, and of his "scorched earth" policies that prompted Robert E. Lee to label Pope a "miscreant", recent histories suggest that it was the selfishness of George McClellan and the uncooperative attitudes of McClellan's lieutenants who served under Pope, specifically Fitz-John Porter, that were primarily to blame for Pope's resounding defeat.

This contemporary account of the actions of Pope's army pretty much affirms the recent accounts, commenting on how Pope was able to consolidate the scattered and badly beaten (by Jackson) elements of the Union forces in the Shenandoah into one cohesive force. Pope also established a pretty credible Union cavalry force that unfortunately was not supported by the Union infantry. This actually led to Pope's undoing when John Buford and a small cavalry force found itself alone up against Longstreet's entire corps in the Thoroughfare Gap. Forced to concede the Gap, the Union cavalry alerted Pope to the fact that Longstreet was coming in to relieve Jackson, who was pretty badly battered. Pope refused to heed this warning until it was too late, and was soundly thrashed.

The reluctance of Fitz-John Porter to commit his corps to the fray, and of his mentor McClellan refusal to send troops already promised to Pope only contributed to an inevitable, though not necessary defeat.

If only Ropes' book, with its small print wasn't so difficult to read!

Even the wonderfully graphic maps are barely legible. I would recommend "Second Manassas" from the Time-Life Voices of the Civil War series, and "Return to Bull Run" by John Hennessey for further exploration of the Pope period in the Union Army.

I bought the book in order to learn faster about the following: (a) How can (should) I use existing CIM schemas in order to develop CIM schema for my company devices. (b) How to represent all these concepts in XML (c) Relation of CIM to network management and DEN.

I expected to find some examples how all that look and work in real life. This, however, is not a book that I needed. It gives you some background in OO modeling that I did not like and actually did not need at all. I also suspect that somebody without previous OO knowledge might be confused. For example, on page 41, Properties, it is written: "A property is a value used to denote a characteristic of a class; it can be thought of as a pair of functions, one to set the property value and one to return the property value." Property access methods are confused with a property itself !

XML part is very short and general so I still have to go somewhere else to figure out how to implement XML part. Almost the same can be said about DEN - CIM relation.

The authors are obviously knowledgeable in the areas of OOA/OOD, Patterns and Enterprise management. I do not like their presentation but it may happen that I am not a part of their 'target group' for which they wrote the book. That is why I gave the book 3 stars. As far as I am concerned, I have to go to DMTF web site to learn hard way from documents. This book did not help me to do my job more efficiently.

This dictionary is a wonderful resource for the composition of Latin prose. Dr. Smith has, indeed, been very full in his definitions, and shades of meaning are distinguished very well, easily steering the user away from careless mistakes that might occur with smaller dictionaries. I have no criticism for Dr. Smith's dictionary.

Wimbledon Publishers have not given Smith his due in this edition, though, and I must recommend against their edition. I have neither seen nor used the Bolchazy edition, but it should be preferred to this one, because Wimbledon has been careless in the preparation of theirs. In using the book only briefly, I have come across two duplicated pages, i.e., page 202 is a duplicate of page 203 (and so the real page 202 is omitted entirely), likewise with pages 182 and 183. I have not yet combed the book for similar repetitions, but one word omitted on page 202 was DESTROY, a loss which any student of Latin composition (or literature) will recognize as a significant hole in the Latin language. Moreover, in several attempts to find redress, I have not yet received any response from the press.

I would suggest this dictionary to any scrupulous student of Latin composition who wishes to avoid the pitfalls and oversimplifications of a Cassell's (or the like), but likewise the unavoidably mannered vocabulary of Bradley's Arnold.

Hey fellas, how would you feel if you knew that hot phone-sex operator you wasted $40 on last night was really a GUY? This memoir of life in the highly profitable adult entertainment industry can be funny, but overall it is very disturbing to read about all the horrible things callers make the "girls" say and do. Lots of mysogyny, horrible cursing, sadistic and pedophilic fantasies...but I guess it's better these losers pay some girl (or guy) to take their abuse over the phone than inflict it upon their loved ones or strangers. A very surreal read, not for the faint of heart.

Under the hypotheses of high tech market characteristics, this book shows many different view points from before. Althought It can't be avoided that waste paragraphs was still usings, and that sentences without logic were dragged in to swell the total, those brand new and brave views still should be praised. We say semiconducter industry is one of the high tech. industries but the author disagreed; we say the key point of successing marketing is concerning the consumer but the author doesn't mention that thoughtout this book. Surprise happens with your studying. people who were intresting in marketing in hogh tech. market and product may try this.